Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
the establishment. fed up after the republican party's loss in the election. some members of the gop are pushing former congressman j.c. watts to run for chairman. but a lot of people in the party don't seem too hot on the idea. a leader tells our peter hamby he had no prayer. roland martin warns that responses like that could backfire. he writes even if they choose not to vote for watts, if he decides to even seek the job, it is his skin color and perspective. that is strl to the central to the gop having any sort of presidential future. "out front" tonight, c.j. watts. let me ask you point blank, what do you think about what roland martin had to say, what the party has to respond to you even considering running, thinking about race? >> well, erin, i don't necessarily believe that the answer is to take a black face and put him in the chairmanship at the rnc or female or hispanic or asian ornatetive americ nati. i think it's bigger than that. i think we have to surround ourselves, at the rnc and throughout the party, we have to understand diversity. diversity is not a bad word. i take a biblical
on the november mid term election? and if you hook at-- and then later on, reflexively supported the regime in ruwan da when there were more war crimes committed and since vowed to heal that, but, you know, you've seen her political statements recently that showed there's a political side of susan rice and willingness for talking points that we can't afford as secretary of state and john kerry, he was part of the foreign senate relations committee and he was back in the late 60's and talked about war crimes that he reportedly saw against the vietnam war and you have some track records that don't make them the best fit. >> there are numerous republicans, john mccain, lindsey graham, a barraso who sates i would support john kerry as secretary of state who in their words would cruise through a nomination. and how would an affect if those two are in place? >> if you like what's in the last four years, you're going to get more of the same. deep defense cuts. if you had john kerry as secretary of defense. what we need is a strong secretary of defense, in spite of drawdowns and budget cuts is goin
elections taking place in japan on the 16th and south korea on the 19th of this month. well within the range of this test that is scheduled to come in the coming days. influencing their neighbors and influencing politics and testing new ground with what would a second-term approach be with obama. bill: this is what we believe to be the ultimate range. 5,000 to 6,000 kilometers. 3,700 miles. china to the west here. in japan well within range of north korea were to be successful in developing this launch mechanism. here is hawaii. that's outside the range of the 6,000 kilometers. the question then begs how realistic is it that north korea would be a threat to the united states? >> through pro live raig they could be a threat to the united states. and if they were to hit our allies in the near range. in the south and also japan. those are the near-term risks. but proliferation could occur at any time. they were able to reach to hawaii ... bill: history shows they are not very good at this. are they getting better? >> only more tests will tell. you are correct history has shown it's been embarra
we asked -- these are exit polls from november 6, from the last election, of course. should same-sex marriage be legally recognized, yes, 49%, no, 46%. obviously, the country is closely divided on this. but we have seen a little bit of a shift in the numbers. brian, do you think that the time has come that attitudes about this have changed and the court will go with that change? >> no, i don't think that's the case at all. i mean, look, six months ago, north carolina voted by over 61% to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. of course, there were the four deep blue liberal statings that voted to redefine marriage, but that's an indication of the future of the you country. there is no constitutional right to redefine marriage. our founding fathers didn't see it that way, the last supreme court decision, the united states supreme court said there was no federal question here. so this is essentially making the law up as you go along, it is reading into the constitution. i do not believe the united states supreme court is going to launch another culture war, just like r
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)